The New Sex Math: Probabilities and Opportunities

January 25, 2011

In a recent post I asked why difficult, demanding women who put out get boyfriends. (Hint: the qualifier at the end is the kicker.) Several guys commented that it’s because bitches and sluts try harder. They’re making their interest known, signaling their availability, driving down the risk of rejection for the male. They also consider them more feminine and attractive. But why? The most attractive women don’t have to be sluts. Or do they? An attractive but moody woman who’s DTF represents an easy and rewarding target compared to the shy, lovely girl in your chemistry class. Apparently, this drives male behavior – especially in college.

I. The Eligible Bachelor Paradox

It turns out that signaling availability, and possibly even acting as the aggressor, may be a valid strategy throughout one’s dating career. Mark Gimein wrote The Eligible Bachelor Paradox, exploring how game theory might explain why dinner parties among 30-somethings always seem to have a shortage of available, appealing men.

The shortage—or—more exactly, the perception of a shortage—becomes evident as you hit your late 20s and more acute as you wander into the 30s. Some men explain their social fortune by believing they’ve become more attractive with age; many women prefer the far likelier explanation that male faults have become easier to overlook.

The problem of the eligible bachelor is one of the great riddles of social life. Shouldn’t there be about as many highly eligible and appealing men as there are attractive, eligible women?

Gimein says no, and offers an explanation via game theory. In any auction, there will be “strong bidders” and “weak bidders.” Strong bidders are very confident of their ability to win the auction. However, weak bidders understand they can be outbid and often bid more aggressively, while the strong bidders hold out for a great deal. Empirical studies of auctions show that weak bidders often win. In dating, a strong bidder is a woman who feels very confident of her ability to attract men, while a weak bidder knows that she is less attractive and faces stiff competition.

You can see how this works intuitively if you just consider that with a lot at stake in getting it right in one shot, it’s the women who are confident that they are holding a strong hand who are likely to hold out and wait for the perfect prospect.

It’s all about the checklist! Meanwhile, women holding a weaker hand make moves.

Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.

Grimein does close with a very important caveat:

Game theory deals with how best to win the prize, but it works only when you can decide what’s worth winning.

As an interesting aside, this calls into question the constant refrain that women who are less attractive than their hookups can get them for sex but not for commitment. That makes sense intuitively, but it appears that down the road, at least some men marry the women who bid aggressively. Some of those men may not be worth winning, but some of them are bound to be. In fact, men who are attractive but not socially dominant in their sphere may be quickest to jump at the chance to secure a woman – even if she is not as attractive as he is. The weak bidders are snatching up the good men!

II. The Carol Syndrome

The Eligible Bachelor Paradox dovetails nicely with another game theory concept that’s been applied to dating – dubbed The Carol Syndrome, named for the author’s beautiful friend Carol. Carol doesn’t get asked out much, and she believes that she frightens men away, but she doesn’t understand why. Surely some men are willing to approach her! It turns out that game theory can explain, at least theoretically why no men do.

Let’s say that Carol is sitting in Starbucks. Cute Guy sees her and feels attraction – he would love to get her number. He figures there are three potential outcomes, listed in order of preference:

1. Approach Carol and get her number. Win!

2. Forget it and go back to texting. Meh.

3. Approach Carol and get rejected. Loser!

While Cute Guy is deciding what to do, he notices other guys in Starbucks, several of whom also have noticed Carol and are also stealing glances at her. He is a STEM guy, so he calculates his odds of success with each approach. Obviously, his chance of success with option 2 is zero. Option 1 is much more likely if he’s the only guy who approaches Carol, and Option 3 is probable if several guys approach Carol. He’d really rather not deal with the rejection. But she is gorgeous! How to know what other guys will do?

Game theory says that the better looking Carol is, the more guys will want to approach her, and the more likely that any one of them will be rejected. Since all the guys act independently, the odds are highest that each of them will conclude that it is not a good idea to approach Carol. The more admiring men there are in Starbucks, the lower Carol’s chances of getting approached at all. (Math nerds can find the equation here.)

The article concludes:

“Carol’s perception that she scares men away is not a delusion after all. According to the mathematics above, she may be justified in thinking that guys stay away from her. It is not a matter of bad luck but a collateral effect of interactive rationality. A paradoxical consequence is that Carol’s attractiveness acts as a repellent. This surprising phenomenon — which we call the Carol syndrome —is a by-product of psychological social interaction.”

Men like to say that beautiful women get hit on 50 times a day, but it simply isn’t true. They’re much more likely to go through their day having awkward interactions with tongue-tied men who won’t look them in the eye. Very few men have the cajones to approach a 10 and hit on her – and most 10s are not likely to jump at the chance to stroke the ego of a player. In this sociosexual climate, there are fewer men who feel confident approaching, period.

III. OK Cupid’s Mathematics of Beauty

OKCupid’s latest blog post is about how the distribution of scores men give women for attractiveness predicts how many messages those women will receive. They studied this after noticing that many women rating in the 80th percentile, on average, had widely varying response rates from men.

The first thing they pointed out was that the scoring for a woman who is rated a 7 can look like this:

Or this:

It turns out that women with the second profile get a lot more interest from men, 2-3 times as much in some cases. OKCupid calls is the curse of being “cute” and comes up with a weighted formula that suggests you’re better off if 30% of guys think you’re heinous than if everyone thinks you’re quite attractive. What’s going on? OKCupid says that some people tend to produce stronger reactions than others. Being a person who draws a consensus appraisal is an online dating faux pas, and they go so far as to suggest playing up your faults in photos. Don’t hide those chubby thighs! I’m not particularly impressed with this reasoning (but then again, they’re the statisticians).

I agree that cute and wholesome appears to be a curse, according to these numbers, but in looking at the photos, it seems that many of the successful women are “hot and nasty” looking. In other words, the women with more uneven ratings look decidedly more sexually available, in my opinion.

For example, this woman: is getting only half the messages of this woman:

Huh?

The first woman is faaaaar better looking, in my opinion, but she doesn’t look like the sexual hellcat that is woman #2. In other words, the first woman is suffering from The Carol Syndrome. She got lots of high-ish ratings, but few men approached her. The second woman gets plenty of zeroes, but more ratings of “hot.” The guys who rated her “hot” followed through and took their shot.

Via a different route, OKCupid and I come to the same conclusion:

“So this is our paradox: when some men think you’re ugly, other men are more likely to message you. And when some men think you’re cute, other men become less interested. Why would this happen? Perhaps a little game theory can explain:

Suppose you’re a man who’s really into someone. If you suspect other men areuninterested, it means less competition. You therefore have an added incentive to send a message. You might start thinking: maybe she’s lonely. . . maybe she’s just waiting to find a guy who appreciates her. . . at least I won’t get lost in the crowd. . . maybe these small thoughts, plus the fact that you really think she’s hot, prod you to action.

On the other hand…someone conventionally cute, but not totally hot, might appear to be more in-demand than she actually is. To the typical man considering her, she’s obviously attractive enough to create the impression that other guys are into her, too.”

As an aside, I believe that “hot” and “edgy” are trumping “beautiful” and “warm” in the sexual marketplace today as a direct result of hookup culture, and I plan to expand on this theory in another post soon. Of course, it may be that the first woman is getting messages from men who are interested in a relationship with a lovely woman, and the second woman is getting messaged by men looking for “hit it and quit it” sex.

For now, it does appear that weak bidders have the upper hand in attracting male attention. If you’re a weak bidder (no offense), then you’d be smart to be realistic and decisive. It probably can’t hurt to draw on some heavy eyeliner and take a “come hither” photo of yourself for OKCupid.

If you’re a strong bidder, you can’t afford to sit and wait for men to seek you out. You must be proactive in your search for a man. The only way Carol is likely to get a date at Starbucks is if she approaches the man she finds attractive. That would be the highest possible payoff for Cute Guy. He gets the date without any effort whatsoever!

By the way, game theory is predicated on the notion that people behave rationally. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, doesn’t agree (obvs, haha). He’s currently working on a book about dating, which should be very interesting.

Filed in: Uncategorized
  • GudEnuf

    Very few men have the cajones to approach a 10 and hit on her

    While I object to your gender-essentialist language, the point bears repeating. A 10 is easier than an 8. Males, repeat that to yourself: a 10 is easier than an 8. This is game theory gone awry: because men think there is more competition for the 10, they avoid pursuing her; which means there is less competition for her. This is true even online, where the consequences of rejection are minimal.Aren’t you lucky to have this secret information!

    • @GudEnuf

      While I object to your gender-essentialist language…

      Assuming you are serious here (last time I checked only one gender sported cajones) I can only imagine two possibilities:
      1. You’ve been abducted and set to gender neutral reeducation camp.
      2. You’re hooking up with an ardent feminist.

      The graphic that I think you may be referring to is this:

      OKCupid Paradox
      They then said, under the heading “What We Think is Going On,” what I included above in the post:

      So this is our paradox: when some men think you’re ugly, other men are more likely to message you. And when some men think you’re cute, other men become less interested.

      GudEnuf says:

      I’m surprised you don’t buy in to this explanation, seeing it is a natural extension of the Carol paradox.

      But I did buy into it, and specifically identified it as an extension of the Carol paradox. I also said that I was not impressed with their reasoning, and offered additional insights re the sexual message conveyed in the second photo. Do you agree that the first woman is prettier than the second? Do you agree that the second looks like a “bad girl?” Do you agree that men may be more motivated to message a bad girl?

  • GudEnuf

    She got lots of high-ish ratings, but few men approached her. The second woman gets plenty of zeroes, but more ratings of “hot.” The guys who rated her “hot” followed through and took their shot.

    Why are you ignoring the second part of post, which specifically rules out this theory?

  • @GudEnuf
    Oops, just realized I didn’t link to OKCupid. Will remedy that. But I’m not sure what you’re talking about re the theory being ruled out – could you be specific?

  • GudEnuf

    @Susan

    When you control for the number of men who think a woman is hot, heteroscedasticitic beauty still wins out. In other words:

    Woman A: 5 men rate her 10, 5 men rate her 0.
    Woman B: 5 men rate her 10, 5 men rate her 7.

    Woman A will still get more messages. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the explanation is in your quote (“So this is our paradox…”). I’m surprised you don’t buy in to this explanation, seeing it is a natural extension of the Carol paradox.

  • Geoff

    They say a picture’s worth a thousand words…but not in this case. The Susan example picture is just a picture–maybe on her online dating profile it says she’s very religious, loves her still-married parents, and expects to wait until marriage. Maybe the other girl says she’s a Scientologist, hates her father, and expects to wait until about 7 p.m. tonight to have sex. Obviously, these would be variables of great interest if we were trying to dispute the Carol Syndrome Theory.
    .
    I have an alternate theory–chicks as hot as Carol above will get alpha interest of all kinds (and obviously, alphas don’t have confidence problems). They may dismiss her once they figure she’s not an easy score, but they WILL approach her.
    .
    Without some scientific testing that controls for variability in sexual openness, I believe the Carol Syndrome Theory is interesting but unproven, and likely just plain wrong. Good looking chicks do NOT get ignored.

    • I have an alternate theory–chicks as hot as Carol above will get alpha interest of all kinds

      But if alphas are only 20% of the population, it’s likely that Carol is often somewhere with zero alphas. In addition, she may be dismissing the guys who approach as overly cocky or smug, a turnoff for many women. Even Mystery flamed out frequently. As has been noted in another comment, Carol is unlikely to go out with just anyone – she’s a strong bidder, and will respond to men of her level of attractiveness, or near it, and she may be very selective. As I pointed out in the post, this is probably not a winning strategy for Carol in this SMP.

  • Very interesting stuff. I’d like to suggest another vector in the equation. While it is true that “10”s may be getting approached less because of… what shall we call it… non-selection conformity?? … It’s probably also true that there’s an element of men knowing their place in the universe.

    As you can probably guess, I’m not shy about approaching 10s if the mood hits me. But regardless of my experience, the fact that I own a house, a car, and an education, and a dozen other awesome things about me, I know that the most I’m likely to get in most cases is a phone number which will somehow never be answered.

    Through sheer persistence, I’ve had my fifteen minutes of fame with a 10 or two. But the reality is that most 10s who are complaining about not getting hit on enough are complaining about not getting hit on by 9s and 10s. True, the 6s and 5s aren’t hitting on them either, but all they’d get out of that would be an ego boost, not a date.

    So the 6s and 7s are getting hit on by 6s and 7s (and probably 5s) because the game theory is working out in the guys’ heads and the risk is lower. But we can’t forget that the risk is lower because of simple economics, too. No fancy game theory necessary. HB10s turn down 6s and 7s. And Male 9s and 10s are as rare as female 10s.

  • pjay

    Men should forget about “their place in the universe” and always make a beeline for the hottest woman in the room.
    *
    For precisely the reason that most men will be intimidated by her and hesitate to even acknowledge her presence.
    *
    Testicles. Use them.

  • Mike C

    It’s probably also true that there’s an element of men knowing their place in the universe.
    .
    I’ll second that.

  • Mike C

    However, weak bidders understand they can be outbid and often bid more aggressively, while the strong bidders hold out for a great deal. Empirical studies of auctions show that weak bidders often win. In dating, a strong bidder is a woman who feels very confident of her ability to attract men, while a weak bidder knows that she is less attractive and faces stiff competition.
    .
    I think this also dovetails with the idea that generally speaking guys are going to take the easier route.
    .
    By the way, game theory is predicated on the notion that people behave rationally. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, doesn’t agree (obvs, haha).
    .
    This has been studied extensively and exhaustively in the field of behavioral finance. People are extremely irrational, and irrational in very predictable ways.

  • Christi

    I think this is all very interesting. It got me thinking of my number one complaint about guys. Whether I’m at a bar, Starbucks, or crossing the street (happened this morning), the guys that approach me often fall into two categories. They are either guys that are extremely not my type (older, out of shape, or just weird), OR they are ultra alpha, douchey, game-y, cheesy, and hot. I want the nice, cute guy!!! But that guy NEVER talks to me!!! ughhhhh

  • Christi

    oops I wasn’t done. My friends and I talk about this all the time and we figure the weird guys have nothing to lose. They are so used to getting rejected that it’s almost a joke to them. Then the other guys are probably so used to getting their way that they are sure that they will score.

  • pjay

    I think only women have cajones (pun alert).

    Men have *cojones*.

  • “Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.”
    .
    I think this intersects with the idea of loyalty as an LTR value. Athol Kay waxed recently about a woman’s expression of loyalty to her husband as a key factor in his faithfulness and marital satisfaction. (Link http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2010/07/female-loyalty-is-selling-point.html)
    .
    To the point of loyalty, a woman being decisive in her pursuit of a man (or receipt of his pursuit) is a major active signal that she is prepared to be loyal. When she is making social investment in a man, he can predict she’ll feel “skin in the game” in that she took an active role in building her relationship with him. Of course there is a Laffer curve of reversing returns on this, slutty women have no qualms about overtly pursuing and they certainly don’t have any loyalty going on.
    .
    This goes to my point that women are going to have to be assertive in the SMP – showing overt interest, responding with confidence to a man’s advances and sometimes pursuing on their own part. Neither the legal incentives nor the overall quality of the choices are getting better for men, so women who would do well to take a more forward role in actively signalling (that includes initiating the DTR talk.)
    .
    I’ve beat this horse before, but a lot of young women appear to be mentally stuck to the “men present, women select” mating model, and that’s just not a winning strategy today. Plenty of plain Janes have a great shot at a good man and a good life if they are willing to assert some agency.

    • I’ve beat this horse before, but a lot of young women appear to be mentally stuck to the “men present, women select” mating model, and that’s just not a winning strategy today. Plenty of plain Janes have a great shot at a good man and a good life if they are willing to assert some agency.

      Agree 100%. Bootcamps for women, perhaps?

  • terre

    But if alphas are only 20% of the population, it’s likely that Carol is often somewhere with zero alphas

    .
    This is not how sexual hierarchy works, although if she’s sufficiently attractive (or deluded) she’ll set up shop and move to a big city where the alphas are truly alpha. Hence women who trek to Hollywood, etc.

  • “Mathematics of beauty”….sort of like the situation in business where it might be better have a product fanatically loved by 30% and hated by most of the other 70% than one which is so-so liked by just about everybody.

    • “Mathematics of beauty”….sort of like the situation in business where it might be better have a product fanatically loved by 30% and hated by most of the other 70% than one which is so-so liked by just about everybody.

      Yes, it’s like indifference vs. hate. A strong emotional response is always more interesting than a neutral one.

  • terre

    And neither sex is to blame for the sad “polyamory” community; both tend to be equally poor offenders for peddling that bill of goods. Women tend to be the more duped, though. The whole “friends with benefits” phenomenon often comically approximates a woman trying to convince herself she wanted to buy that deed to the Moon (check out this thread where commentators dress up their being discarded like a used tissue with phrases like “a relationship wasn’t in the cards”, “neither of us was ready”, etc.)

    • @terre
      I thought that post at Salon was interesting – it’s by Tracy Clark Flory, who used to be solidly in the sex-pos camp. Now Salon has deleted Broadsheet, the feminism blog, and she’s still writing the same kinds of articles without a feminist slant. Predictably, Amanda Marcotte has taken her to task at Slate for that FWB article. I thought it was right on, and I intend to write about it. But what fascinates me more is the drifting away of previous “believers” who try it and get hurt, like TCF did.

  • Bob

    Great post – though the rictus-grinning beta in the photo behind the “cuter” girl may also have something to do with it. Can’t find it now, but there is some link out there explaining that girls with guys in their photos are less likely to get responses on dating sites.

    I would also have to smack anyone whose ability to compare logically-deduced conlusions to the observations is impared. If “every” guy is approaching these hotter girls, so it’s not worth it to try… wouldn’t you see someone try if you were there long enough? Witnessed this exact thing happened at a coffee shop yesterday. Gorgeous girl was left alone for half an hour while I was with another lady-friend (in hindsight, my own lady-friend was boring, and only good manners kept me from hitting on the lonely hot chick, but meh, live and learn).

    The problem with the Carol effect is that the game changes as men become aware of it, or as they choose to act irrationally. For instance, in a town with an unusal concentration of Game proponents, or one where every man has read this article, more guys would make the approach. When this information becomes available, the rational method of acting shifts toward making a move. So, as the man said – “Testicles. Use them.”

  • Dalton

    This stuff about 10s not being approached is laughable. The hottest women I have actually spent time with got plenty of attention from guys even while I was with them. The hottest women I have known reported getting hit on by hundreds of men per year. I saw no reason to doubt them because I observed some of it while we were out together. There are plenty of men who are not intimidated by highly attractive women who already appear to be with a man. And a pretty big one like me.

    First you guys claim that less attractive women are harder to approach than beautiful women because they get approached more. Then you concede that most guys find beautiful women so intimidating that they don’t even try with them.

    How do you suppose all those average schlubs learned to be intimidated by beautiful women? Since some seem to have difficulty grasping the obvious, here it is: guys learn to be intimidated by things they repeatedly fail at. Monk’s Guide to Dating put it best:

    “Is it true that many gorgeous babes are never approached by guys?

    All I can say is, “Don’t believe the hype!” Unless a woman stays home all the time, has no job, has no friends or is in a convent, there is a really slim chance that she is unattached or has no suitors. If she is truly dateless, then it is by choice. Most likely she is being very selective. The contention that there are many gorgeous, lonely women is a myth and/or rationalization spread by losers. One need only look around to see the real truth. — Contributed by Friar Wally”

    http://losernet.tripod.com/monk1.html

  • ““Mathematics of beauty”….sort of like the situation in business where it might be better have a product fanatically loved by 30% and hated by most of the other 70% than one which is so-so liked by just about everybody.”
    .
    Ping to Aldonza and Susan, here’s the business Pareto Principle in action…if 80% of attention comes from 20% of the people, you’re better off having 20-30% of people digging you and the rest writing you off than have everyone thinking you’re an OK second choice if their Carol shoots them down.

    • @Badger

      you’re better off having 20-30% of people digging you and the rest writing you off than have everyone thinking you’re an OK second choice if their Carol shoots them down.

      So you don’t accept the game theory explanation in this case? It’s not a question of guys thinking they don’t have a shot with the first girl – it’s guys getting psyched about the second girl precisely because they do think they may succeed. So yeah, having a really committed 20% is great, but how does a woman engender that? Do you agree with me that the second woman looks more sexually available? Could that explain it?

  • I actually think the second woman is much cuter than the first… but that’s just my opinion. As a man, I will say your theory is absolutely true. I will not take the chance to approach a hot woman if I know many men find her covetable. And you’re absolutely right when you claim most hot women dun get hit on 50+ times in 1 day. The default action a man takes when they see a very hot women is one of shyness and fear, not hitting on her.

  • AnonymousF

    @Badger
    “This goes to my point that women are going to have to be assertive… showing overt interest, responding with confidence to a man’s advances and sometimes pursuing on their own part.”

    Yeah. A reticent woman will still have some options, but they won’t be as good or as numerous.

    When my fiancee and I first met, he saw something that was a dealbreaker for him. Getting him to ask me out took some effort. I had to make my interest in him obvious AND increase his interest in me enough to overcome the negative. If I’d taken the passive approach we’d never have gotten together.

    • Getting him to ask me out took some effort. I had to make my interest in him obvious AND increase his interest in me enough to overcome the negative. If I’d taken the passive approach we’d never have gotten together.

      Good testimonial here.

  • Guardial

    Of the two women pictured, they’re both about of equal attraction if you look closely. Both are getting on in years and trying to hide it. The second woman does a better job of distracting with makeup and hair.

    The first woman is obviously chunky. (The second may be also. The photo is cropped to make it difficult to tell.)

    They both display symptoms of Internet Disease.

    Not for the faint of heart.
    http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_disease

    tl;dr The second woman makes a stronger visual impression with striking eye makeup.

  • Guardial

    Beautiful women get hit on constantly. The following covers it pretty well.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-women-take-classes-in-tennis-wine.html?showComment=1179521940000#c6734529611275806165

    Tantor said…

    Truly attractive women need never search for men. We men are searching for them everywhere, all the time, around the clock, from puberty until death us do part. We have men positioned on alert around the planet in strategic locations ready to launch at a moment’s notice should an attractive woman appear. A pretty girl can’t go to the grocery store for a quart of milk without coming back with a date. Follow a pretty girl around for a few hours and you will find that she is constantly hit on by every man with a pulse. As far as providing our companionship to attractive women in need of it, we men have the Earth covered. There are no gaps in our coverage. None. If Gisele Bündchen needs a date tonight in the howling Arctic wilderness, we have men ready to go now to serve her need at their own expense and risk.

    So if a woman and her girlfriends can find no men who will date them it is not because all the available single men have been sucked off the face of the planet and deposited in some faraway nebula. It is far more likely that they have overestimated their attractiveness in the dating market and rejected the invitations that any reasonably attractive, healthy woman receives in the course of a week. There is not a single woman alive who can fail to get a date by lowering her expectations, which are too often wildly inflated by conceit.

    • @Guardial
      I disagree entirely with what Tantor said, except that women should pursue their own interests and do what makes them happy. That is more likely to lead to meeting new people, including men. You’ve gotta get as many touches on the ball as possible.

      There is not a single woman alive who can fail to get a date by lowering her expectations, which are too often wildly inflated by conceit.“

      .
      OK, so let’s say a woman who is a 10 decides she is going to say yes to the first 5 who approaches her. She may wait a very long time. That’s the point – the unwillingness of men to approach. Providing links from Game blogs does not really add evidence, as I already stated that this myth is perpetrated precisely in this arena. And again, I’m not talking about “hired guns” here – sure, a hot slut in a bar gets hit on all the time. The story about Carol is interesting precisely because she is beautiful and classy.

  • Plain Jane

    Regarding “guys who know their place in the Universe” – they don’t hit on 10s but they don’t hit on their equals either. They WANT the 10s. They DON’T want their equals. Hence they end up with nobody. I have dozens of examples of this in the lives of the men around me.
    Christi, I also have experience of the weird or older guys approaching me but not the guys I want. I want guys who are my own age. They don’t have to be 10s. But again, guys my own age, my own ethnic group AND my own looks level are pining for 9s and 10s. Therefore I started dating interracially and was able to secure men of higher status within THEIR ethnic group(s).
    That means, a guy at my level in my own race is giving me a pass while holding out for a girl out of his league, while I am able to pull guys in other ethnic groups that are out of my league.
    Make sense?

  • Matt T

    Why would the “most appealing men” marry young? Since the most appealing men are alpha’s, wouldn’t they spend their 20s pumping and dumping girls rather than bothering with marriage? The study’s statement makes no sense to me from that perspective.

    @Plain Jane: Many guys will screw anything with a pulse, but even they have some sense of honor and pride. Everyone wants a girlfriend they can be seen in public with.